List lead scoring rules and filter by active status to review how points are awarded when a condition matches a contact.
List lead scoring rules. Each rule awards points when a condition matches a contact.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (default 1) | |
| per_page | No | Results per page (default 100, max 200) | |
| is_active | No | Filter by active/inactive |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.71.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explains the scoring-rule concept but says nothing about read-only safety, whether pagination defaults matter, permission requirements, or what the response contains for a tool with no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the domain gloss second. Nothing is wasted, though the second sentence could have been spent on usage or filtering context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
A simple, zero-required-parameter list tool whose parameters are fully documented in the schema, so the description is adequate for correct invocation. It falls short on return-value framing (rule shape: condition, points, active flag) which would help since no output schema exists.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%: page, per_page and is_active all carry their own defaults and limits in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ("List lead scoring rules") and adds a one-line explanation of what a scoring rule is. It does not name the sibling tools (conduyt_create_scoring_rule, conduyt_recalculate_scores) but the list-vs-mutate distinction is inferable from the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this versus conduyt_recalculate_scores or the create/update/delete rule siblings, and no mention of prerequisites such as whether scoring must be configured first. Usage is only implied by the verb "List".
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.